This website contains decisions and determinations of both the Labour Court and the WRC. It also contains decisions and recommendations of the Equality Tribunal since 1996 and post 2007 determinations of the Employment Appeals Tribunal. For more information click here

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute(s).

Background:

The claimant was the subject of a workplace Investigation,(9th March 2017), Investigation outcome meeting,(6th April 2017), a Disciplinary hearing,(4th May 2017), a Disciplinary outcome meeting,(1st June 2017) for alleged Unauthorised absence from work which subsequently imposed a sanction of Final written warning on her employee file. The claimant unsuccessfully appealed the sanction (28th August 2017). It was submitted on behalf of the claimant that she was involved in an official trade dispute and that the actions of the Respondent are part of a medium to long term plan to purposefully disengage in normal industrial relations thereby marginalising the Claimants Union to the point of de-recognition. It was also submitted that the process the claimant was subjected to did not comply with the principles of natural justice and fairness and were also contrary to the Respondents own procedures and policies.

The respondent submitted that they acted more than fairly and in line with their procedures. The respondent submitted that the claimant was absent from work without leave and participated in unofficial industrial action.

Findings:

Both parties made written and verbal submissions.

Having examined the evidence presented at the hearing I have made the following findings:

I am satisfied by the evidence that the claimant was involved in an official trade dispute by the notice dated the 6th February 2017 which was issued to the respondent and that the correct procedure was applied by the claimants union to engage in such action.

I am satisfied by the evidence that there was an agreement made between the Hierarchy of the Union and Respondent in relation to the issue of an orderly return to work and that no victimisation would take place as a result of partaking in industrial action and this was done in meetings chaired by the Labour Court. However I cannot say with any certainty that this information was relayed down the chain of management within the Respondent.

I subsequently find in consideration of the foregoing that the substance of the complaint against the claimant was baseless at best or a serious breach of trust if the Management of the Respondent was aware of such an agreement.

In examining the Disciplinary process as applied to the claimant, it is abundantly clear from the minutes of the various meetings that there was no separation of process and as such the claimant was denied a fair and transparent process that subscribes to the principles of natural justice and fairness. It is also obvious that the respondent failed to implement its own procedures correctly.

I also find it extraordinary that it took 6 months to complete the process.

Based on the evidence as presented my decision is as follows.

Recommendation

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

That the Final written warning be expunged from the claimants file if it has not already been done through the efflux of time.